Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Both Option 2 and Option 3 are twice a day for part of the therapy as listed.

If I were you, I'd start with option 3.

Even though it is twice a day, given what you've said about your schedule and work it may be the most convenient for you because it has relatively rare side effects and there are no food restrictions. The second dose (and the first too for that matter) is heat stable and can just be put in your pocket to be taken when it is time. It is really quite easy to manage, especially since it is small enough to swallow without water.

Both Option 1 and Option 3 have food restrictions -- Option 1 needs to be taken several hours after eating and can cause considerable grogginess if you have a tight schedule and need to be awake shortly after taking it. Option 3 needs to be taken with food (twice a day).

As far as side effects, Option 1 does have some side effects for many people that sound like fun (wild dreams and erections) but tends to cause depression and anger for a lot of people. If you are in a bad spot emotionally or have suffered from depression, you might want to avoid it. There's also some concern if you have a schedule where you might need to be on call, since many people have a period of several hours where they are groggy after taking it (which is why most people take it before bed).

Option 2 and option 3 seem to have less frequent side effects, although option 2 often raises cholesterol. Option 3 side effects seem to be relatively rare, although they can be serious when they happen (I'm one of the unlucky few percent who wasn't able to continue on raltegravir -- even though it was otherwise the most convenient regimen for me)

But they are all good options with some potential risks. Many people have no problems.

Given what we know about how easy it is to switch from med to med without a problem these days, I'd start with the most convenient and see if it works out well for you. If there's a problem -- switch.

BestAssurbanipal

P.S. the above assumes that you have no drug resistance. If you haven't done so, make sure you have gotten a resistance test before you choose a regimen.

It is always difficult to answer a question like this when you have no experience on either of the meds.(I chose a fairly 'unusual' combo and pretty happy I did - I would do the same choice now that I learnt more, so...)

A lot of factors enter into that choice : availability, cost, ease of use etc.

One of the points I can tell from a risk management point of view (and not medical) is that:my combo is initially 2 x /day and after 6 months my doc allowed to take 1 x /day (off label).Therefore I have experience both.One should not underestimate the convenience of the once daily. The number of pills is not an issue since you will most likely take some other supplement or vitamin along with it, any way.

I can assure you : once daily is real cool. Some people (including myself) can stand the morning intake (some can't)The one thing about morning is that once it is done you do not have to worry about it any more, no need to carry pills (unless you have a plan to sleep out, but you can organize yourself more freely)

One person was mentioning that he was embarrassed swallowing in front of friends at diners or at work. He also has to take his meds with food... He drives all the way home just for that! Me, I do not have to worry about it. Think of food. The easiest one to fix is breakfast (which you usually take at home...)

One of the benefits of option 1 or 2 it that it lets open the other one in case the first failsOption 3, in case of failure might be more tricky. This WAS explained in the previous version of:

(I did not really understand the point, but, it was written by experts so I think it is a point worth considering, but, of note, I could not find that comment again in the latest version)

the other question is:

ANY meds has risks (short terms or long terms). Long term is was you would want to avoid most. Short term are easily noticeable and a switch can be done timely, without any harm left behind(sudden death being one exception...)on long terms risk, they are now, with current meds, either minimal (as far as we know) or unknown (because the drug is pretty new, for example RAL)Short term risks are pretty well identified

So the risk management question is:

should one take the very low (short term) risk as a first option or the other way around.I think it is worth considering taking the one that has the highest incidence of short term reversible SE.Because, in case you fail on this one (about 20% patients experience failure on their first regimen, at least as per published clinical studies, I suppose it is much less if you can be really adherent)then your plan B is the one with the higher incidence of short term SE, which is no fun...

it is said that about 20% have to quit option 1 . then , go to option 3: no problemOn the other hand if you virologically fail on option 3, then you have to switch to option 1 . Stress...

Of 2 dishes, which one to take first? the one you prefer or the other

So I think that choosing plan A should take into consideration what plan B is.

Option 1 will sooner have generics, so if, in the course of your life, funding (or getting insurance becomes a problem), then you may be on the safer side.You will also want to make sure that your insurance will cover option 3 which is, here where I live, significantly more expensive than option 1.

Option 1 is the most popular: most likely not without reasons

At the time I started, Option 3 was NOT covered by my insurance, so for me, was not an option. you will really want to verify that first.at that time, it was not yet known if option 3 would ever become a Once daily. I was hopefull. It turned out that it must be 2 x/day

Due to my own specifics, I decided to shy away from option 1 and 2 and decided to go for a recommended alternative option (viramune + kivexa)The initial risks are higher, but, now that I have passed that, I'm fine with it...

While you ALWAYS have the right to ask for a switch, once successfull on one regimen, many docs are reluctant to switch

So this choice of first regimen is at the same time not irreversible, but still important

Good Luck

Eric

PS: at of today, you are not elligible for my combo, as your CD4 count is way higher than the imposed limit of 400 (although, my doc said this limitation will be revisited, he once mentionned that he would be reluctant to offer it to people with CD4s 600 and above)

Thank you Assurbanipal, Matt and Eric, for your large and interesting point of view, with many details, definitively veru usefull...

I´ve check, the insurance can cover Isentress at 100%, but it should not be used as a first option, which may generate some problems... This seems me the best option because of side effects....

Option 2, may not be a good option for the beginning...

I´m lucky, my CD 4 are still high (for how long with my VL?), so I can see with tranquility the best option for me... On abril, I´ll do a Genotip test, which will give me more information about what to do... I don´t want to wait so much and see my CD 4 going very low...

cover Isentress at 100%, but it should not be used as a first option, which may generate some problems... Option 2, may not be a good option for the beginning...

Hi,

This is very precisely why I suggested you really check and cross check with this insurance coverage before making any decision.

I do not make comments on meds I do not take. I know that many docs I have met seems relieved when I told them that I have never been using PIs (part of your option 2). Use of PI was a question asked by my neurologist, cardiologist, etc. I think older PI may have had some issues. Newer PIs , though, may be a different story...

I am not implying that PIs are not 'preferable' : they save lives !

The decision (and actually your question about options) should be taken AFTER the resistance test is done anyway

In my case both PI based and PI saving options where available. My doc said that he prefers to offer PIs when the resistance test mandates PIs or is otherwise quite complex. He mentioned it is his preferred option also in case someone has (very) low CD4, since one does not have the luxury of time and failure is not an option.

My personal, naive, newbie, choice for myself was:option3, 1 then 2. When I learnt that 3 would not be covered for first line, I was really upset!When my doc offered to me option V&K I was very surprised.

If you start with option 1 and have problems with the CNS effects (incidence about 10%) and they do not resolve, please bear in mind that , then , the option Viramune + Truvada becomes a valid option for you with the benefit of lower incidence of CNS effect with viramune (ca 1%) AND the low cost (and generic availability) AND still once daily. The reason is that, despite option V&T, is NOT an option for treatment naives with CD4 > 400 (males), it is an OK option as second line. After you have initiated option 1 , you are NOT treatment naive anymore...If consider that option in case of CNS effect, I would nonetheless recommend that you try to bear with the option 1 , if this is possible, until you are UD. A switch for reasons other than virologic failure, seems easier once the patient is UD

In other words, V&T or V&K can not be part of your plan A, but can be of your plan B...

A few people here have made that switch and are happy with it.

Once again you have time and should not worry about options until you get the genotype results

Even when you get these, you will still have time to revisit your options and decision taking...

The two times meds where a topic alot of things came up.I have a great ID doc and always explains all my options to me in great detail.have you ever seen you geno maping it might help make a better choice it did for me..even though my virus could of been crontroled by alot of different combos my geno type showed there was a best option for me..I trust my doc and with his assistance I make the best choice for me..

In the end it is your choice and i could tell you all the good things about what I take but it might not be the best thing for you that is something needs to be disscussed between you and your doc..and part of that is having a good realationship with you ID doc and trusting in what he tells you..

Well, here, it is impossible for me to switch of doc, there are so little. My has the best reputation from the infected people, he is very kind and available, and also always answer to any doubt by mail. Well, he does not explain a lot about therapeutic option because here, there is not a lot for choosing and people generaly don´t ask a lot to the doc...

I´m lucky to have the possibility to have a good insurance, that allow me to get other kind of medecine that are not offered in a developping country, by the way, despite my doc knows them, he has not so many experience with them (they only use it in extreme cases, when the other medecines don´t work)... Also, I have to consider to make the deal to buy some drugs directly with pharmaceutic companies, this is the case with Isentress, and because here they are sold cheaper than in developped countries, I noticed that they don´t like a lot selling them one client to on client, it means some work for them they don´t seem to like doing.......... With Merck, well, they are kind, but it sucks to have to bargaring the prices (it is not because I have an insurance they have to rise it up...)...

Having VIH here is all an adventure, by the way, all this makes me distraction and I don´t have time to think of the bad ways relationated with HIV, no time for depression too...

Well, after the genotype test (another adventure because of laws, papers and prblem for selling results by mails...), I´ll be completelly ready for the day I will have to start medecine...

I like option 3, but logistic fact and insurance can give me some problems... It is so difficult to have information from the insurance about it....

Option 1 is a better one in relation with my reality. I don´t like a lot side effects relationated with depression (well, since I´ve been diagnosticated, I´ve been very very well; but in the past I used to have some low depresive levels). Anyway, I undestand I can change to option 3 in the future...

Genotype test will confirm everything, despite my doc says that there are very very little resistance to meds here in comparation with other countries...

In socialized health system, it is not uncommon practice that doc or patient may have to request authorisation from the insurrance.

Insurrance have their own doctors and if they think the treatment is costly and that there are cheaper alternatives, it is in the general interest of the insurred general public that they ask to reconsider and or deny that (expensive treatment).

Insurrance are also kind people but not 100% charity.

They have 2 ways of barring you from benefits:

A- with CD4 at 700, they can claim they you are not IN NEED for treatment. that value is usually set at 350.B- Option 3 cost about 3 times option 1

I had that discussion with my doc. My CD4 where in 450-550. Insurrance COULD have denied coverage. If I was asking for the most expensive treatment, that would definitively give them a point.

He suggested that I take no risk: ask for treatment (eventhough I am not classified as in-need for it), but ask for a reasonnably priced.

Bear in mind that, expecially in socialized health care, insurrance may have their say-so.

It is fear enough. You get the luxury of early treatment for a small insurrance premium.

If you are lucky, you can hope to travel in second class with a third class ticket.Hoping to travel first class with a third class ticket, may be asking for too much.

Things will go in that order:get the resistance test resultsget your doc recommendationmake sure you have the insurrance thumbs up

And do not be upset if you can not get option 3 at first. Option 1 works fine for a vast majority of people...

What upsets me though, is that as long as I&T was a second line treatment only option, it made sense that the drug manufacturer asks for a higher price.It is a bit disappointing that they did not lower the price when it became approved to treatment naives (first line). They have significantly increased their market size and not lowered the price by one cent...

I go to France next month, so I´ll be able to ask directly to insurance, I will also do genotype tests there at that moment...

I don´t want to start treatment at CD 4 above 700, by the way I will do at 500. My VL is high and I think I will see my CD decreasing quickly, that is why I want to be ready (I think I´m lucky to be able to plan well the start of a treatment...)